Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Amanda R. Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX; Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX.
For Jose Estrada Nava, also known as: Jose Maria Estrada, Defendant - Appellant: Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender's Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX; William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Jose Estrada Nava challenges his sentence. Because he has not shown plain error, we affirm.
Estrada Nava pleaded guilty, in the Northern District of Texas, of illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to twenty-seven months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. The judgment of sentence states that it will run consecutively with any sentence of imprisonment imposed in his pending revocation proceeding in the Western District of Texas. Subsequently, the Western District revoked Estrada Nava's probation and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment to run consecutively with his illegal-reentry sentence. Estrada Nava appeals his twenty-seven-month sentence, claiming that the district court erred in ordering that it run consecutively with his pending federal sentence in the Western District.
Because Estrada Nava did not object to the order of consecutive sentences in the district court, we review only for plain error. Under plain-error review, this court may correct a forfeited error in its " sound discretion" on a showing of (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Unitefd States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135-36, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). " Meeting all four prongs is difficult, as it should be." Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The order to run the illegal reentry sentence consecutively with the pending federal sentence is clear and obvious error under prongs one and two. See United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir. 2008). Estrada Nava, however, has failed to meet his burden as to prong three.
Estrada Nava bears the burden of showing that his substantial rights were affected by the error. Affecting substantial rights " means that the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings."  Estrada Nava ...